Jump to content

HHP: MASN/Nats/Orioles case (Inside the Courtroom)

Frobby

By Frobby
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
eddie83 Hangout Grand Counsel

eddie83

Posted
Posted
Thanks, that's interesting. It's amazing that MLB has allowed this to drag on for more than a year.

Yeah, I check that site from time to time and I hadn't been there in awhile. Maybe the Nats can takeover the MASN 2 channel and the teams will have their own separate channels. Angelos knows how important this is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Can_of_corn Hangout Grand Counsel

Can_of_corn

Posted
Posted
Yeah, I check that site from time to time and I hadn't been there in awhile. Maybe the Nats can takeover the MASN 2 channel and the teams will have their own separate channels. Angelos knows how important this is.

Of course he does, that is why he is dragging his feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SteveA Hangout Grand Counsel

SteveA

Posted
Posted
There are a couple of plausible explanations:

Xfinity pays MASN $14MM/month ($168MM Annually)

[\QUOTE]

Every 5 years they can change the numbers based on any market changes, right now DC is one top the top television markets and is being paid like a bottom 5 market.

Should they be paid based on their market size, or by the actual # of eyeballs watching the games? My impression is that the Nats have good attendance because the ballpark has become a place to see and be seen, but that the number of people who watch many of the 162 games on TV is not nearly as big as it should be in a market that size. Or did that change with their emergence as a contender last year? I know a couple years ago their ratings were incredibly miniscule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Winning_Season Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

Winning_Season

Posted
Posted

I guess the logical question is how long are the Nationals bound to remain a part of MASN? I know the creation of MASN was to placate Angelos about the Nationals encroaching in his market but are they Nats bound to continue paying back Angelos forever?

The best case for the Nats and I would say the fairest possible outcome would be to have the Nationals have the freedom to sell their TV rights to whoever they want. I know its not the best outcome for the Orioles but it seems to be the most fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frobby Hangout Grand Counsel

Frobby

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I guess the logical question is how long are the Nationals bound to remain a part of MASN? I know the creation of MASN was to placate Angelos about the Nationals encroaching in his market but are they Nats bound to continue paying back Angelos forever?

30 years, I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eddie83 Hangout Grand Counsel

eddie83

Posted
Posted
The ownership deal with MASN is for thirty years, but I don't believe the Nationals are bound to stay with MASN. If they were, MLB wouldn't be talking with Fox Sports.

I thought the 30 year mark was when the Nats hit 33% in ownership of MASN? That's the year their increasing share of the network reaches it's fullest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Upper Deck John AAA

Upper Deck John

Posted
Posted
The ownership deal with MASN is for thirty years, but I don't believe the Nationals are bound to stay with MASN. If they were, MLB wouldn't be talking with Fox Sports.

It's forever. The ownership stake changes over time. Of course, the tv rights fees were not expected to jump the way they have. It could cost more than MASN receives in cable fees at some point.

Of course if Pete sells and the stipulation is O's get the same rights fees as the Nats, he makes out again. I think he got $75 M from MLB for the Nats "share" back when the network began. Now the network is worth more than is was in 2006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TonySoprano Hangout Grand Counsel

TonySoprano

Posted
Posted
It's forever. The ownership stake changes over time. Of course, the tv rights fees were not expected to jump the way they have. It could cost more than MASN receives in cable fees at some point.

Of course if Pete sells and the stipulation is O's get the same rights fees as the Nats, he makes out again. I think he got $75 M from MLB for the Nats "share" back when the network began. Now the network is worth more than is was in 2006.

Then go back to my post and explain if it's forever, why is MLB exploring other options?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frobby Hangout Grand Counsel

Frobby

Posted
  • Author
Posted

:2yay-thumb:

Then go back to my post and explain if it's forever, why is MLB exploring other options?

I may have to go back and review some of the old articles. But I believe MLB is hoping it can resolve the dispute over rights fees due to the Nats by getting MASN to sell its rights to some other network that will pay market value, and then giving Peter Angelos some chunk of that payment. I'm simply speculating here. But I'm pretty sure that MASN has the Nats locked up for a very long time, though the Nats have the right to have the rights fees reset once every five years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TonySoprano Hangout Grand Counsel

TonySoprano

Posted
Posted
:2yay-thumb:

I may have to go back and review some of the old articles. But I believe MLB is hoping it can resolve the dispute over rights fees due to the Nats by getting MASN to sell its rights to some other network that will pay market value, and then giving Peter Angelos some chunk of that payment. I'm simply speculating here. But I'm pretty sure that MASN has the Nats locked up for a very long time, though the Nats have the right to have the rights fees reset once every five years.

What's in it for Angelos to hang on to MASN then? He would likely make a substantial profit on the sale of MASN and his team would have a lot more network revenue. And so this drags on for over a year because.....?

All the deal specifies is what the ownership percentages will be through year 20, and the equitable rights fees. MASN without the Nationals isn't worth nearly as much because of Washington's larger market share. Can the Orioles prohibit the viewing of the Nationals on a competing network? Angelos would likely litigate against it, which is what MLB sought to avoid by creating MASN. I think the other purpose of MASN was to add value to the Nationals when MLB was looking for a new owner.

However, even though MLB avoided the territory dispute by this shared business deal, in this area we can watch the Braves (TBS), Cubs (WGN), Yankees (YES) on the same cable systems that bring us MASN. Why should the Nationals be different if they went on their own if they went to FOX Sports? What is to keep the Nationals from walking away from their ownership share of MASN if another network made it worth their while? What if the Nationals wanted to put this to the legal test themselves with their owner's very deep pockets? Their argument would be what makes Baltimore-Washington different than NY, Chicago, L.A., and the S.F. bay area?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frobby Hangout Grand Counsel

Frobby

Posted
  • Author
Posted
What's in it for Angelos to hang on to MASN then? He would likely make a substantial profit on the sale of MASN and his team would have a lot more network revenue. And so this drags on for over a year because.....?

All the deal specifies is what the ownership percentages will be through year 20, and the equitable rights fees. MASN without the Nationals isn't worth nearly as much because of Washington's larger market share. Can the Orioles prohibit the viewing of the Nationals on a competing network? Angelos would likely litigate against it. However, even though MLB avoided the territory dispute by this shared business deal, in this area we can watch the Braves (TBS), Cubs (WGN), Yankees (YES) on the same cable systems that bring us MASN. Why should the Nationals be different if they went on their own if they went to FOX Sports? What is to keep the Nationals from walking away from their ownership share of MASN if another network made it worth their while?

Peter Angelos would have been pretty stupid to sign a deal where the Nats could just walk away from MASN after a few years. And Angelos is not stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frobby Hangout Grand Counsel

Frobby

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I can't post a link from my iPhone, but pressboxonline.com reported on June 4 that MASN was granted TV rights for the Nats for 30 years, like I said. The article explains that MASN's cable fees are the lowest of all RSN's and MLB wants some other RSN to purchase a stake and infuse some cash that can be used to pay higher rights fees. This is very consistent with what I've said all along -- the problem here is that the Nats want market rates for their rights fees, but MASN is weaker than most RSN's and can't afford to pay market rates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • dystopia
      Cole Irvin 2024

      By dystopia · Posted

      Whether you want to call it "breathtaking stupidity" or just a normal level of stupidity... the point was, it was stupid, and he needs to be criticized for it. This is nothing new for Hyde -- he is always making dumb in-game decisions, the worst of which are ones like these: burning our best relievers for no reason, or warming guys up repeatedly and then not bringing them into the game (Buck was good at avoiding this and made a point about it).  This will have a cumulative effect throughout the season, and Elias isn't going to be able to bail him out this time by using the Norfolk shuttle to keep our bullpen fresh like last year. Most everyone is out of options. I get that people don't want to hear these things after a win but they need to be said.
    • sportsfan8703
      The Marlins are officially selling. Tanner Scott for Povich?

      By sportsfan8703 · Posted

      Nope. Any why are you neg repping me for an opinion?  That’s Facebook stuff. 
    • ScGO's
      The Marlins are officially selling. Tanner Scott for Povich?

      By ScGO's · Posted

      I'd keep an eye on Scott. If his K's creep back up to 10+ per 9 and BB's back towards 4 or so, he might be worth a look. I don't think the Orioles can afford to trade any upper level pitching guys; they need the depth. The value of Povich is probably not that far away from what a 12K/9 & 3BB/9 LH Flame throw closer gets you.  If we had 5 Povich's in the system, it would not be as frowned upon. But Scott is not quite in last year's form just yet, so the Marlins will hold on to him for a minute to see where his value could be in a couple months. Might have to overpay a little to get him now as the Marlins probably feel like his market will heat up closer to the July deadline. Stowers, Norby, and a good low level arm might get conversations started. They might come back asking about Beavers, McDermott, some of the top DSL guys; I don't think it would be a conversation about Lottery tickets
    • SteveA
      Anyone tried the Immaculate Grid game?

      By SteveA · Posted

      9/9, 44, 8 Orioles. It was possible to do all 9 Orioles.  
    • baltfan
      Has a relief pitcher ever won a Gold Glove?

      By baltfan · Posted

      I love this thread.  It would be great if this narrative about Cano being a gold glover could make its way to an influential site like Fangraphs or other places.  Cano is an excellent athlete and doesn't get the credit for it.  
    • sportsfan8703
      This Year Really Needs to Be the Year

      By sportsfan8703 · Posted

      Agreed. The dodgers have the Ohtani BS. Cole is down. Strider is out for the Braves.  We really need a step on neck move for a top end bullpen arm. 
    • RarityFlaherty
      Attitudes Towards Past WS Opponents

      By RarityFlaherty · Posted

      Yeah I was born in 85. Yankees will always be far and away the #1 most hated team for me. Royals are probably #4. I’d say Red Sox are #2 and Pirates are #3 but that probably has more to do with Ravens/Patriots and Ravens/Steelers rivalries than the actual baseball rivalries. I just don’t like any New England or Pittsburgh teams in any sport. I don’t like the Mets because they are a New York team, but at least they aren’t the Yankees, so it’s hard to say where I’d rank them. Probably somewhere after our other division rivals and now the Rangers because of how last year ended. I do like the Phillies because I have family who are from the Philadelphia area, but I don’t really have any feelings about the Reds or Dodgers. 

  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...